The Curious Case of Gaël Kakuta
(14 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading ...Joe takes a look at the rise and fall of Gaël Kakuta and the wider implications of Chelsea’s incessant loan policy. You can follow Joe on Twitter (@JoeTweeds) and Plains of Almería (@PlainsOfAlmeria).
“Go see the French lad, he is the star”. These were the words of Michael Ballack when talking about Gaël Kakuta. The former German captain had been playing alongside Kakuta in a reserve team game and the talents of the young Frenchman made a lasting impression. Gaël went on to become Chelsea’s “Scholar of the Year” and Academy Player of the Year. For those who watched Kakuta during those formative years at Chelsea he remains arguably the most dominant U18 talent the club has seen in its ranks. People who watch youth team football far more regularly than I do still confidently state that he remains the best Academy player they have seen at Chelsea.
Kakuta was (and perhaps still is) a special footballer, the likes of which are extremely hard to unearth. A generational talent he was blessed with supreme skill, wonderful dribbling, incredible balance, killer vision and a consistent end product. He had the ability to take over and dominate a football match that no Chelsea Academy player has come close to achieving since. Looking wider afield he had more influence at youth level than the likes of Paul Pogba, Luke Shaw and Antoine Griezmann. Nevertheless, all three have made their mark in the professional ranks and have at one time or another been linked with Chelsea.
While I think Chelsea’s insistence on repeatedly loaning out young players contributed to his derailment, Guy Hillion (a prominent Chelsea scout) has recently spoken out on the issue and appears to lay blame at the feet of Kakuta: “It is a huge waste. I already said it and I repeat it, he is the most gifted player of his generation. He could have been exceptional”. He went on to say that “talent is not enough. When you pile on failures and there is trouble in any club where you played, you have to ask the right questions and question yourself. There was Bolton, Fulham and Dijon too. You can’t manage everything in a player’s career. You can’t manage what is on his mind, his entourage or his family.”
I have read several articles on Kakuta and they all seem to intimate the same issues at every club he plays at. We have a player who could feasibly be starting on the opposite wing to Eden Hazard throwing his career away through sheer stubbornness and an unwillingness to learn. The modern game does not have room for mavericks and while Hazard was certainly not in this bracket his development under Mourinho has been astonishing. Frank Lampard in a recent tribute dinner for José Mourinho laughed when he stated that the Special One had (and I paraphrase) “even got Hazard chasing full-backs”.
This was further reinforced by Mourinho in a recent interview when he was speaking about Hazard’s development as a player. “What I did was normal, the way he [Hazard] reacted was not normal. It was fantastic. His evolution is great. What I feel now with him is responsibility in every aspect. Against Man United I saw him make a fantastic tackle in our box. And then against Stoke I saw him with initiative not waiting for things to happen but making things happen.” The point being if a borderline world class (if he is not already) player can evolve and adapt to a greater team ethic, then Kakuta has no excuse.
There are naturally wider questions surrounding Kakuta’s fade into obscurity and likely departure from Chelsea. The major question concerns Chelsea’s persistent “loan, loan, and loan some more” policy and whether this is the right approach?
I am far from being someone who screams that we should be playing players from the youth team at every opportunity. Nevertheless, there have been a number of players in recent memory who have clearly not benefitted from a temporary move away from the club. The salient problem appears to be that these players tend to be deemed our brightest prospects. Josh McEachran is a prime example of a player who has impressed in the Chelsea first team but struggled to make an impact on loan. Ross Barkley, now an apparent summer target, struggled on loan at Leeds before starring at Everton this season. McEachran’s failure to sparkle on loan automatically gets put down to his poor attitude — but there has to be more to it than that.
“We had no intensity and no concentration, it was a very bad game from us. The only positive of the night was Gaël Kakuta. He played very well, he showed his fantastic talent. He trains very well every day and will be the future of Chelsea”. Carlo Ancelotti was speaking after a disappointing overall performance where Kakuta shone. If a player is making progress at the club and his attitude is apparently perfect there has to be a better way at continuing their development at the club. Why do we have to wait for someone to go on loan and be successful to even give them a chance at becoming a regular squad member? We appear to be the only club unwilling to try a youth team product at all.
The problem can trace its way back to the roots of many issues at the club – the short-termism of our goals. Why waste time developing a player when you are expected to win trophies every season? Ancelotti was sacked after finishing second and all while attempting to bring through several youth team products. Once he is sacked for not delivering a title the next manager comes along and all that trust earned under the previous regime counts for nothing. The new manager realises that finishing second is not enough and concludes, rightfully, that relying on established players is perhaps a better call to achieve his goals. If Kakuta’s attitude had been on point and he was held in such high regard by the club, who thought his development would be better served away from Chelsea in a relegation battle/mid-table team?
Chelsea are reportedly a serious contender to sign Luke Shaw in the summer. We are likely to pay well over £20m for him. While this will not be considered a huge amount if he stays at the club for the next twelve years you ultimately need to question our handling of Patrick Van Aanholt. Van Aanholt, if things were equal in the Dutch national squad, would likely be their starting left-back in the upcoming World Cup. His development has been excellent whilst on several loans, yet he is not back at the club competing to become our first choice. He has the same skillset as Shaw with the added benefit of a few years of first team football under his belt. Are we likely to even entertain the possibility of playing him? You tell me. The message we are sending is that even a quality loan spell is not enough. What is the point?
The circle of endless loans makes sense if Chelsea’s actual goal is to simply develop players for profit. Having exceptional Academy facilities, some of the best youth teams in world football and a host of outstanding players makes absolutely no sense if not a single player breaks into the first team squad. The only rational explanation is simply that Chelsea invest all this time, effort and money into producing the best players possible to simply sell them at a significant profit. This may seem like a callous form of Chelsea stockbroking, but is there another logical explanation? Are we honestly suggesting that not a single player in a ten year period has actually been good enough to be a first team squad member? Note the term squad member. We spent millions on Marko Marin when Miroslav Stoch (or another winger) would have sufficed as part of the squad. Why do we have an Academy if not to produce players who eventually become first team squad members?
The case of Kakuta highlights the very worst of this perpetual issue, but it is already repeating itself in the careers of current Chelsea starlets. Looking back to Carlo Ancelotti’s time at Chelsea and his opinion on Josh McEachran tells a familiar tale: “I think Josh McEachran can play every game. He showed his quality. He was good defensively, won a lot of tackles. And, obviously, with the ball he’s fantastic. He can play it short or long without problem. He played with personality and I’m happy with his performance. He has to grow, he has to improve, but he’s ready to play.”
What has happened to McEachran since is a mirror image of Kakuta’s Chelsea career. Young early promise, a manager who explicitly believed in him and then a circle of endless loans that have done nothing but demoralise the player. Yes, attitude has been a huge issue subsequently, but if we have these special players the decision to loan them out for the sake of it needs to be looked at far more closely. McEachran could do with concentrating on his football, but he is edging closer to becoming another promising Chelsea talent who failed to make the grade. We cannot overlook the role of the club in believing he would develop best away from a world class facility with world class players around him. This, all in spite of Ancelotti’s glowing praise.
If Gaël Kakuta had remained at Chelsea, continued to develop and worked his way into playing 20-30 games a season I believe things would be greatly different to what they are now. This is not something that will only ever apply to Kakuta. We have some extremely promising talent in the Academy at present. All, apparently, seem to feel that going out on loan is the only route to making their way into the first team. Considering that this has not happened in ten or so years, with even Bertrand’s fleeting graduation to the first team squad looking to end in the summer, you have to question what these players are being told by management.
The question of attitude seems to link very well with this senseless cyclical loan scheme. Chelsea players are taught from an extremely young age how to play a specific style of football. It goes without saying that the U21s (and below) play an exceptionally fluid and attractive game, with all the players expected to be multifunctional. They rotate playing different roles in midfield; attackers learn to play wide as well as down the middle and centre-backs can often be seen learning at full-back. Going from a team that plays football to being used as a hoofer/clodhopper in the Championship must be a huge departure from what they are being taught.
Nathaniel Chalobah’s disappointing loan spell at Nottingham Forest was characterised by his willingness to play football and Davies’ unwillingness to let him. Asking a player of that ability and talent, who shone as a kid at Watford in midfield, to simply play direct and not “dwell” (i.e. take a touch and look for a decent pass) does what for his development? If anything it puts a cross against him as the loan itself is looked upon as a failure. Why are we putting players into these banal long ball sides with no intent of developing them? Why are we letting inferior coaches and managers reduce talented players to simply becoming water carriers? It makes no sense.
We appear to be expecting a perfect attitude from players in the face of imperfect circumstances. I would like to think that we are coaching youngsters in a way that prepares them for the realities of being a professional footballer, but it appears that our best and brightest find it difficult to adapt in a non-Chelsea environment. I have always found it strange that even if someone has successfully shown they are capable of playing in the Championship, how that equates to making it at Chelsea. Another question for another day.
Unquestionably Gaël Kakuta’s attitude since becoming a loan regular has been below the standards expected of a Chelsea player. To make it at this club you have to not only be exceptionally talented but have the right demeanour as well. In most circumstances attitude can trump ability and if injuries had not been such a regular feature of his life I am sure Sam Hutchinson would be a regular squad member now. Nevertheless, there have been many talented players with a great attitude that never quite made it at the club.
What Kakuta’s headline fall from grace needs to prompt is questions about the transition from the U21 setup to the first team. Why does every player need to go out on loan? Why are we making definitive judgements on a player’s ability at 21 (no one at the club foresaw Matić becoming this good, why not?)? Why are we so reluctant to give any player a chance in the first team? Why are we reticent to give a player a two year window in the squad to determine what they might accomplish? Why are we loaning players to clubs who are so at odds with Chelsea stylistically that even a successful loan spell puts them no closer to the first team? Lastly and perhaps the most important question – why when we identify a generational talent can we not properly translate their extraordinary potential into becoming a star?
If Chelsea’s ultimate aim is to simply buy a young player for a few hundred thousand and sell him for a couple of million pounds, then fair enough. That may be an entirely blunt assessment of our current youth policy, but are there any signs of that improving? The fans are crying out for an English home grown product to inherit the mantle that Terry has held for so long. To keep the core of what makes Chelsea so great we need players who have been here since an early age who get the club. We need players like Terry who will play through and beyond the pain barrier and put their body on the line. We are lucky that many of our overseas signings get the club, but having someone here from the age of eight who loves the club is different.
I have seen signs of these traits from players in the Academy. A notable ‘scrap’ against Barcelona when it kicked off in an U19 game saw Baker/Saville front up and get in the faces of their Barcelona opponents. That type of spirit and togetherness comes from being at the club for such a long period of time and I would hate to see that disappear because we are unwilling to graduate any of the Academy talents. If we were producing hard working yet ultimately mediocre footballers it would be understandable. Conversely, the quality within the Academy is now at a standard where we have to begin investing in the long-term character of the team. The more “Chelsea” players in the squad the better.
If we can continue to imbue the squad with the mentality of players who have grown up around the likes of Čech, Lampard, Terry, Essien and Drogba et al. as role models then we can only assume this unique spirit continues and the team will never lose that quality. The longer it goes without a successful graduate becoming part of the future of the club the less likely we are to retain the inherent fight and drive that makes Terry’s leadership in particular unthinkable to lose.
Finishing with our protagonist - Gaël Kakuta is now twenty-two years old and at a point in his career where it could go two ways. The club can let him leave and he may well go on to reach the heights once expected of him (or continue to fade away). Alternatively, the club can ask one of the greatest managers in world football to see if he can turn Kakuta around and resurrect this rough diamond. It is 99.9% certain that the club take the option of selling him and I cannot blame them for that. It would, however, be nice to think that Kakuta could turn his life around under Mourinho and blossom into that supreme talent we all hoped he would become.
Related Posts
10 Responses to The Curious Case of Gaël Kakuta
Leave a Reply
« The Politics of Stamford Bridge The Harding Perspective: Thoughts on Manchester City »
Loading tweets...
look, you’ve tried and you’ve tried to say something deep & meaningful but you’ve missed the most basic point of all —not every young especially young players who are great as teenagers, make it — that’s just a fact, in every sport. — kakuta’s attitude is wrong the scout says it , other s say it too — he’s been on four loans and they’ve all ended the same way — he won’t learn and he has a wrong attitude — this isn’t Chelsea’s problem. Its his.
As for Josh having a great passing game isn’t enough on its own to make it at premier league level. He has to bulk up, he has to do his fair share of defensive stuff and he has to be better than someone already in the team and the squad. He isn’t. He’s also had a lot of loans because the club has faith in him and want him to develop. But he hasn’t. Middlesborough was his best loan but even there he wasn’t that great a success. He’s not alone in this; lots of young players don’t kick on after being great at junior level. Its a fact of life for every club and in ever sport. As well, chelsea don’t always buy players for them to get into the first team they sometimes buy them to develop them and sell them on. Its how clubs make money nowadays. The 1980′s aren’t here anymore man, its a different world. How many youth players at Arsenal have progressed to the senior team? Not that many. Finally its really clear why Chelsea don’t give them first team time. The club has to win games. It’s not a kindergarten for developing players. We have to make the four every year for Roman’s investment to bear fruit. They can’t afford to let undeveloped players learn their trade for half a year. Nor is Jose going to waste time on someone like Kakuta who doesn’t want to learn, when he’s got players like Bertrand who have the right attitude and yet still can’t get a game. If Jose lost games because he was playing tyro players you’d be yelling that he wasn’t doing his job. Its a harsh world top football and not everything works out . A club has to be ruthless and sometimes this means players don’t make it. Them’s the facts man, and your article manages to ignore all of them.
I think you’ve missed the entire point of this piece - namely are endless loans worthwhile. I have never stated that McEachran or Kakuta should be playing in the first team. In fact, I am critical of the pair of them regularly. My point being that once a player is having a degree of success in the first team, as both have had, the eventual loan path is not fruitful. How can you categorically say that McEachran would not have developed into a Wilshere/Barkley? Or that Kakuta wouldn’t have developed into a quality winger? You cannot. Why can every other side afford time to their youngsters, yet we cannot? If United can remain competitive while giving time to bang average players, why can’t we? Is there less pressure to win games at Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Manchester United etc? Absolute nonsense.
The club most certainly has to win games but if we are not producing players of the ability to beat the likes of Hull and Palace while fitting in alongside 10 established players you have to question the entire system. The fact that club trained players are a must in European competition means, unlike your kindergarten point, that the club have a duty to bring players through of a sufficient quality. How you have missed this is mind boggling. When we get to a point where a certain percentage of players need to be club trained and we have none then things will look fantastic for the prospects of the club.
mate they have never had any degree of success in the first team neither of them. I don’t know where you got that idea from, one quote from Carlo Anchelotti after one game! Please neither of them have ever forced themselves into any form of reckoning — Chelsea can’t play Josh in the first team in the hope he might develop into something or kakuta either — that’s my point and you’ve missed it - you’ve also ignored what the club scout says about kakutu which blames his attitude, but maybe in your perfect dream world you know better — there’s a very good reason why Chelsea can’t afford to give time to young players: roman’s entire project is built on continued high profile on field success, otherwise his whole investment has to be started all over again - as soon as we drop out the four we’re fucked, the only time we did we were lucky we won the champs league and as soon as it looks like we’re going that way the manager gets fired, that should tell you something — Man u don’t give much chance to young players, they did once who else can you name cleverly he doesn’t get much chance anymore, the belgian winger? well this season they got no one else — Chelsea aren’t in that situation — barca don’t give young players training time on the pitch even though they play in a 2 team league — the club has a duty to win that’s its paramount duty, its not a fuckin charity to make nice things happen, its not santa claus, its a business — honestly your complaints are way off the point and i don’t think you grasp what the priorities of a big club are or what the reality and the success rate of bringing young players through really is — you’re in cloud cuckoo land
I agree with Joe that the whole situation is a mess and I believe its because there is no real direction or control in regards to the youth players. A good recent example is Bertrand. Bertrand was brought into the first team squad by RDM and did very well winning the champions league. He then was also used by Rafa after RDM was sacked and so given a new long term contract by Chelsea, knowing that rafa was temporary and that jose was likely to come back. Then jose comes in and ignores Bertrand so much that he demands a loan and does an interview saying his career depends on this loan as he’ll probably be sold. So my questions are: 1: Whats the point of bringing bertrand successfully into the squad and then letting the next manager just kick him out of it? 2: Why give Bertrand a new contract when the club was not willing to actually support his progress? 3: Why isn’t there anyone senior enough at chelsea to tell Jose to incorporate Bertrand into his squad? The same thing has happened with Piazon who said that Jose had absolutely no interest in him.
You might have seen an interview with Roberto Martinez from the weekend, I believe. One of the gems in there was his dislike of sending players out on loan. Trying to remember what he said without finding the article again, but was basically along the lines of the parent club cannot control the player’s environment or that it may be radically different than the environment of the parent club. I think you get into that some when you criticize Chelsea sending players to these route 1 style lower division clubs. I am interested to see how the Vitesse relationship develops, but it cannot be good for morale building, and by extension, development, for the brightest of the academy to be sent on dead-end loan deals. The Chalobah one this season has been particularly difficult for me to watch given how much he seemed to progress last season. Hard for me to believe he couldn’t have seen a little bit of pitch time in the first half of the season given where our central midfield was before the January window.
Entirely agree with this.
I agree with Joe to a large extent. Could it be because we’ve not had managerial stability for an elongated period of time? Having that could define the footballing philosophy and these youngsters can then be groomed (both within the academy & through appropriate loans) according to that philosophy. In such a case we’d never have sent Chalobah to Nott.Forest. I don’t think the loans per se are the problem instead the basis of these loans are lacking. Why do we need to send a particular player at a particular developmental juncture to a specific team on loan? This is a very important question and I feel this is where we miss the trick. Each player is different, one may develop very well by staying & playing within our club itself while another may need to play 40 games a season to get to the next level. It seems that our loans are quite random and lack a clear insight to what we need from the player, whether it’s skill development or stamina or just team work & attitude. Bottomline is that having a manager like José on a long term could alleviate most of these issues as we can start grooming the lads right from age 16/17 to match the style & strategy of the first team. The loans we send them too will also then reflect this ultimate ambition of getting them into the first team.
Thanks for the comment Greg and I agree with everything within. Managerial instability is arguably the biggest issue here but would have prompted another 1,000 words!
It is obvious loans generally ineffective. How often have any loanee come back into the first team and been a success?
What the EPL need is a B Team league like in Spain where they can play week in week out against quality opposition!
I think the purchasing of Wilian, Schurrle, and especially Salah recently is the writing on the wall for Kakuta. I don’t think the team has him in it’s plans if they were willing to blow that much of wings (yes I realize Schurrle is a LW/CF but I think it makes it easier to make Willian the RW with him backing up Hazard and Oscar). Like you said it doesn’t absolutely nothing for the development of these talented multi-faceted youngsters to be playing rough and running football with30 year old, 220 lb English/Scottish/Irish “Thugbacks” in League 1/2 and most of the Championship on barely held together pitches. Now like Nick said, a real reserve team league where talented youngsters face off against themselves, that would be wonderful. Probably be well spectated and even televised too. Stick them in 5000 seat stadia that all the Prem league clubs could easily afford to construct on the side. Stick the ticket price points at something working class people can afford, so they can go watch the future stars of their supported side and it would be great all around. But I guess the top squads have become too dependent on the financial incentives of signing these kids and then paying their salaries through loan-outs, and then eventually making 10x their initial transfer is better than making the hard business of another league work. Too bad they are so short-sighted.